248
The Advantages of an STS Approach Over a Typical Textbook
Dominated Approach in Middle School Science
Gilsun Lima
Pusan National University
Stuart 0. Yager
Bethel College
Robert E. Yager
University of Iowa
Two sections of middle school science were taught by two longtime teachers where one used an STS
approach and the other followed the more typical textbook approach closely. Pre- and post
assessments were administered to one section of students for each teacher. The testingfocused on
student concept mastery, general science achievement, concept applications, use of concepts in
new situations, and attitudes toward science. Videotapes of classroom actions were recorded and
analyzed to determine the level of the use of STS-teachingstrategies in the two sections. Information
was also be collected that gave evidence of and noted changes in student creativity and the
continuation of student learning and the use of it beyond the classroom. Major findings indicate
that students experiencing the STSformat where constructivist teachingpractices were used to (a)
learn basic concepts as well as students who studied them directly from the textbook, (b) achieve
as much in terms of general concept mastery as students who studied almost exclusively by using
a textbook closely, (c) apply science concepts in new situations better than students who studied
science in a more traditionalway, (d) develop more positive attitudes about science, (e) exhibit
creativity skills more often and more uniquely, and 09 learn and use science at home and in the
community more than did students in the textbook dominated classroom.
Science-Technology-Society (STS) is an example
of needed reform in science education which has a 25
year history (Aikenhead, 1980; Bybee, 1985; Hurd,
1986; Roy, 1985; Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994; Yager,
1996). STS has been amajor effort in the United States
since its formal inclusion as one of Norris Harms' foci
for improving science education. He used it as one of
the organizers for his National Science Foundation
(NSF)-supported Project Synthesis (Harms, 1977).
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA;
1990) developed an official paper on STS as the 80's
unfolded in recognition of its promise for improving
science learning. Two Search for Excellence monographs reported on several national exemplars of STS
in schools in the U.S. (Penick & Meinhard-Pellens,
1986). The recommendations for changes in science
teaching elaborated in the NationalScience Education
Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996)
coincide. well with the NSTA list ofteaching strategies
defined as the STS approach.
STS continues as a major reform initiative in the
U.S. and even more so around the world during the
decades that have followed. STS efforts were
underway in several European countries before STS
became a major focus in the United States. Two
national programs have existed in the United Kingdom
for several years; both are active and sponsored by the
Association for Science Education in the United
Kingdom. The first of these was Science and Society
(Lewis, 1981) and the second was called Science in a
Social Context (Solomon, 1983). Projekt
Leerpakketontwikkeling Natuurkunde (PLON) is a
well-established STS program in the Netherlands
(Eijkelhof, Boeker, Raat, and Wijnbeek, 1981).
SciencePlus is a curriculum development in Canada
that enjoys widespread use in most provinces in the
middle schoolyears Atlantic Science CurriculumProj ect
(ASCP, 1986, 1987,1988).
STS as a term was coined by John Ziman (1980)
in his book Teaching and LearningAbout Science
and Society. Ziman identified several courses and
titles and special projects that had many common
features. All were concerned with a view of science in
a societal context-a kind of curriculum approach
designed to make traditional concepts and processes
found in typical science and social studies programs
School Science and Mathematics
STS Approach
*
//
more appropriate and relevant to the lives of students.
In 1990 theNSTABoard ofDirectors unanimously
adopted its position statement on STS. This statement
biiefly defined STS as the "teaching and learning of
science and technology in the context of human experience," which indicates a focus for STS as an approach for teaching and learning, as opposed to a
curriculum framework. The full statement indicating
the kind ofspecific teaching advocated andthe leaming
it invokes defines nine essential features of the STS
approach to teaching science used in this study. It has
appeared in all NSTA handbooks each year since,
including the latest one. Those features include
- Student identification of problems with local
interest and impact.
* The use of local resources (both human and
material) to locate information that can be used
inproblemresolution.
* The active involvement of students in seeking
information that canbe applied to solve real-life
problems.
• The extension oflearningbeyond the class period,
the classroom, and the school.
* Aview that science contentis more than concepts
which exist for students to master for tests.
* An emphasis upon process skills which students
can use in their own problem resolution.
* An emphasis upon career awareness especially careers related to science and
technology.
• Identification ofways that scienceand technology
are likely to impact the future.
* Student autonomy in the learning process as
individual issues are identified and approached.
(NSTA, 2005, pp. 23 8-240)
These nine features characterize the STS approach to teaching used in the experimental section of
this study.
Much research has been reported since Ziman
coined the term STS. Yager's (1996) monograph from
SUNY Press documenting STS as reform includes a
review of the fieldin internationally and in the advantages provided for student learning. Certainlythe works
ofrSolomon andAikenhead (1994) have addedmuch to
the historical record and the reform agenda. Solomon
and Aikenhead's review, other works by Totten and
Pedersen, (2004), Cutcliffe (2001), and Cheek (2006)
have helped define the field and the research undertaken to date.
This study is a case study of how two teachers
helped gather data about the results of STS teaching in
miiultiple "domains," including concept, process, attitude,
249
creativity, applications, and worldview (proposed by
McCormackandYager(1989).It exemplifies some ofthe
major advances resulting from STS efforts in the U.S.
Many STS programs utilize societal issues as
course organizers. Some emphasize technology, meaning the inclusion of questions about the human-made
world, as opposed to only questions about the objects
and events encountered in the natural world (i.e., pure
science). Many major reform efforts and most new
textbooks now include technology as a vital part of
science content and often as an entree to more traditional science concepts. Of course, too many equate
technology to the use of computers with instruction.
Such views are far from the broad field of technology
- a discipline in its own right with its own set of national
standards. The International Technology Education
Association (2000) standards linkwell withlthe science
standards developed over a 4-year period by the NRC
(1996). These moves to include technology openly in
school.science programs indicate a complete reversal
of the reforms of the 60s, where science "known to
scientists" defined the organizers and the content comprising new courses. The first was the Physical Science
Study Committee physics, which was conceived and
underway before the Soviet launching of the first
Sputnik. But this move into space hastened the funding
of many curriculum efforts designed to improve and
update K-12 science materials. Mastery of basic science concepts was the major outcome and the primary
indicator of student achievement. Yet most of these
efforts never considered the effects of teaching nor the
actions of students outside the classroom as forms of
evidence to indicate that real learning had occurred.
Critics ofthe STS approach to science teaching are
concerned that students will learn fewer basic science
concepts and that general science achievement will
suffer (Kromhout & Good, 1983). After all, muchless
time is spent with the concept domain per se- at least
less time with mastery for the •sake of mastery or
mastery with the assumption that students first need to
know certain concepts and skills before they can
become involved with problem resolution. Many STS
enthusiasts argue that involving students withrelevant,
student-centered, current, real world issues is where
reform must begin. Engaging students in problem
resolution, regarding situations where interests and
motivation exist from the start, is believed to be
necessary if the needed reforms are to be successful.
Hofstein and Yager (1982) and Yager (2004) have
argued that science classrooms organized around social
issues results inmore students gainingan understanding
of,an appreciationfor, and facilitywiththe use ofmajor
Volume 106(5), May 2006
STS Approach
250
science concepts and process skills in-their own lives.
This position is based on the idea that students must
choose to learn on their own in order to learn (Starnes
& Paris, 2000).
Another effort beginning in the 60s was a specific
focus on science as inquiry. Most reform efforts
emphasize inquiry as a goal, the processes scientists
use, as well as a form of content (philosophy, history,
and sociology of science). All of these foci on inquiry
are elaborated directly in the National Science Education Standards(NSES). Again, these positions and
views of inquiry are central for STS and start with
investigations based on student questions and student
identified issues. Science can be defined as inquiries
into the objects and events found in nature.
Interestingly, inquiry has been a stated goal for
science teaching for over a century in U.S. schools.
However, as Hurd (1978) observed, ithasbeen an elusive
goal and one not readily attained (p. 62). Yet the kind of
teaching defined by the NSTA position paper regarding
STS and the teaching advocated in the NSES both
encourage direct involvement of all students in all four
phases of the scientific experience, (inquiry), namely,
1. Formulating questions about the objects and
events found/observed in the natural world.
2. Offering explanations for the objects and events
encountered (hypotheses formulation).
3. Testing for the validity of explanations offered.
4. Communicating the results to others.
STS is a reform that utilizes these features of the
scientific enterprise. There is emerging evidence suggesting that.STS is the most attractive and successful
approach to meeting these elusive goals. For many,
STS has become a broader view of science - making
it more than a review of the maj or concepts characterizing the major disciplines. A focus on inquiry is also
defined in the NSES, not only as processes used by
scientists, but also a form ofteaching skills advocated
and akind of content that includes the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. It is basic to STS and
illustrates that itis not be an add-on to existing courses
or curricula. It characterizes a broader view of science
content, noting a relationship to technology, and casts
science as a human endeavor - as opposed to it being
described-as an accumulated body of knowledge classified into maj or disciplines, includingbiology, chemistry, physics, and earth science.
Background of the Study
Two teachers in a Midwestern middle school were
introduced to STS by the NSTA Search for Excellence
program, and were both involved in searches for
exemplars with respect to inquiry. Moreover, both
were active professionally and had volunteered for
action research projects. Conversations among the
authors resulted in an action research effort that
involved two sections of middle school students for a
semester-long study - with one teacher following the
STS approach while another section (taught by the
second teacher) remained tied to the textbook and the
stated science curriculum forthe school. Of course, the
fact that the two teachers (Beth-STS and ElaineTextbook Dominated) were different introduced an
uncontrolled variable. However, both teachers wanted
ownership and neither felt that the added data collection could be accomplished in all sections and with
equal numbers experiencing science as STS and/or as
a textbook dominated experience.
These are limitations of the study results and
indicate needed caution in interpreting the results.
(BothBeth and Elaine professed similar philosophies;
(e.g., student centeredness, the importance of inquiry,
attention to the new standards being advocated, and the
importance of collaboration). Beth and Elaine were
collaborators. Both were interested in what would
happen in terms of studentlearning as the effects ofthe
two approaches to teaching were studied.
The two teachers typically worked closely together to prepare materials for laboratories, establish
grading policies, and construct quizzes and unit evaluations (often three per grading period), as well as 9week and semester examinations. Bothwere committed
to the district curriculum-in fact, both were leaders in
its development. But both began to question their
standard approaches to teaching science. Both were
concerned with declining interest on the part of students and the failure to note any indicators that the
major goals for science in the NSES were being met
when theirs remained closely and rigidly tied to the
course structure. Both were willing to change but also
took seriously the idea of action research and the
importance ofhaving evidence for success in a climate
of the calls nationally for research-based studies on
which decisions about learning, grading, and teaching
changes could be made.
Beth had 21 years of teaching experience (as
opposed to Elaine with only 12) and was more interested and involved with local/community issues (even
though these were seldom made part of her science
teaching). She was extremely active in community
organizations and causes and was a well-known "citizen activist."Beth and her studentsbecame concerned
with the proposed site for anew sanitary landfill inthlfeir
School Science and Mathematics
/
STS Approach
town. Initially, Beth was going to depart from the
textbook for one of her class sections for a 3-to 4- week
unit. However, the extent of the problem and the
interest of her students resulted in its continued
focus on the local project for the better part of a year
(one full semester was the source for the data reported
in this study).
The two teachers kept in close communication
regarding their teaching. Elaine chose one of her
classes, amorning section, Which corresponded well.to
the "STS-to-be" section.in terms of time of day, gender
balance of students, family socioeconomic status, gradepoint range, and class performance means. School
counseling staff could find no statistically significant
differences with respect to socioeconomic status, diversity, gender, grade averages, or scores on standard
examinations among the students enrolled in the two
class sections comprising the STS and textbook
sections taught by Beth and Elaine. Data from the
two sections were collected over one full semester,
with both sections completing the same examinations and providing other types of evaluation data.
They had generally acted together 'in planning the
science course for at least a decade. There was no
animosity, no hesitation, no competitiveness; both
were interested in the outcome of their action research - inreality two case studies ofthese teachers
with their respective students trying to meet the
goals of their curriculum they had both developed
over several years.
Although some data from the two teachers had
been collected and used as improvements were sought
over a 2-year period, the teachers were pleased to be
partners in a more carefully planned action research
study, each with one of their science sections over the
course of one semester with specific data collected
from students and parents in the two sections.
The teachers,-principal, director ofcounseling, and
the university science education research team (who
was involved with the NSTA Search for Excellence
Program) agreed that the action research project
would focus on the following research questions:
1. How does the learning of students who study
science with a typical textbook dominated approach
compare with students who experience science With an
STS teaching approach in terms of specific mastery of
science concepts?
2. How do students who study science with a
typical textbook dominated approach compare with
students who have experienced science in an STS
"- teaching approach concerning student ability to apply
scitrce concepts in new situations, development of
251
more positive attitudes toward science, andthe exhibition
of specific creativity skills?
3. How does teaching in the two classrooms differ
in terms of teaching strategies exhibited and practiced
by the teachers involved with the STS and textbook
sections?
4. What do parents and othercommunity members
report about student use of their science learning
outside their class? How do these differ for students in
the textbook dominated approach when compared with
those who experience science in the STS section?
Procedures
It is important for readers to keep in mind that this
is an action research report- in one sense a qualitative
case student effort. The idea for the study came from
the two middle schoolteachers, who sought help from
university science educators in terms of defining STS
and in terms of ways of collecting information for the
study. It was not primarily an experimental studyposed
by researchers who defined their research questions,
proposed a design, and selected validated and reliable
research instruments. This is a report of what two
teachers were able to do with two sections of their
students - one following the textbook closely - the
other using a community controversy as an organizer.
In a real sense this is a report of two case studies with
a comparison ofresults. At the same time quantitative
data were usedfor grading and for interpretation of the
comparison of the teaching and resultant effect on
student learning in the two sections.
Research Question I was approached by identifying basic concepts from the chapters inthe textbook.
Generally, short quizzes. were administered almost
weekly which focused on major constructs from the
science curriculum,(textbook). Ten such quizzes from
a previous year were administered as pretests - and
again at the end of the semester - and were used as a
measure of 'concept mastery. General achievement
was measured by analyzing -scores on a semester
exam, which was given to all grade level students
initially as a pretest and as a posttest at the end of the
semester. No attempt was made to classify the items
andtobe concerned withvalidity, reliability, or the other
concerns typically considered forresearch instruments.
This semester exam was one used in previous years
and, hence, was ready to use as a pretest and again 5
months later as aposttest, which provided an indication
of general science achievement. Of course, these
procedures are also limitations for using the results
reported for the study.
Volume 106(5), May 2006
252
STS Approach
complex thinking thatmade the questions, explanations,
Research Question 2 focuses on application of
and tests viable. It was important to analyze the
concepts to new situations, development of positive
rationale provided by students to be sure studentswere
attitudes, and the exhibition of creativity skills. Applicathinking, as opposed to doing what teachers wanted or
routinely
were
tion of concepts to new situations
merely repeating what they had been told. Complex
collected and encouraged. Many class discussions
thinking was defined as suggestions by students about
ended With teacher questions (sometimes assigned for
questions, explanations, and designs for testing the
future class periods) concerning how the concepts and
validity of their explanations in terms of uniqueness
skills seemingly mastered (either by class discussions
(how often other students listed similar ideas) and the
framed by the textbook, or through laboratory exercomplexity (how difficult it was for teachers and
cises, or by information gathered during the STS efforts
students to even see the connections and uses proposed
associated with the landfill controversy) could be used
by some students).
in completely new situations. Both teachers agreed that
Four research assistants were used to collect
elseskills
or
concepts,
ideas,
use
to
student ability
concerning the aspects of creativity that
information
evidence
where (i.e., in new settings) was important
These assistants were experienced
observed.
be
could
that real learning had occurred. Often, both teachers
Teacher Evaluation Model
Science
Expert
the
using
in
reviewed the "big idea" that emerged and requested
(ESTEEM) instrument (Burry-Stock, 1995) for their
students to keep records of how these ideas could be
own dissertation research. Two had worked directly
used in new contexts. This was easier to justify in the
with Burry-Stock in validating and refining the instruSTS section, since often the students followed up on
ment initially. Information from all students in both
activities and designednew ones that were unrelated to
sections were combined so that the research assistants
the textbook outline. Almost weekly, students were
were unaware in which section the students had
askedtoTrespond to teacherinquiries about such use of
experienced their school science.
ideas and skills beyond the activities and ideas considQuestions arose concerning the use of specific
ered in class - often without applicability beyond the
strategies that STS purports to utilize. These
teaching
classroom and a given testing period.
were likened to the strategies that Brooks
strategies
Attitude was periodically checked in connection
andBrooks (1993) used to define constructivist teachwith each module/unit/chapter that resulted in a maj or
ing..Burry-Stock (1995) validated an instrument (ESexamination. The attitude questions were developed
TEEM) which the teachers selected as a means of
the
by
from items in the Third Assessment of Science
notingthe degree ofconstructivist approaches inuse in
National Assessment ofEducational Programs (NAEP)
discussions and in laboratory situations. The instrument
in 1978. The attitude questions include a listing of
includes 18 observable features that collectively define
favorite classes and the relative placement of science
constructivist teaching approaches. Burry-Stock has
courses, teachers, and career plans. The items propublished extensively concerning the development and
vided information for all students concerning their
use of this measurement tool. Its use here characterrelative reactions about science as a vocation, a subject
izes most previous research by giving an indication of
in school, and something scientists do, as well as
actual teaching practices reported by students, teacher
reactions to their science teacher and classroom.
groups, and "expert" constructivist teachers.
de(1963)
Torrance
Creativity was defined as
The teachers agreed to videotape frequent class
scribed it in his seminal work in this area. The act of
and to ask science education research assissessions
questioning itself is considered a mark-of a creative
partners in the action research to provide
as
tants
person. Further, questions are considered basic (a first
professional interpretation ofthe 18 constructivist feastep) to science itself. Creativity is also required in
tures comprising the ESTEEM instrument. The teachproposing possible answers to questions (sometimes
called hypotheses). A third level of-creativity is -in- ers selected one discussion period and one laboratory
periodfor each unit/module/ chapter for such videotapvolvedwith devising tests for determining the validity of
ing. For this study four sets of videos were collected at
the explanations. Students were routinely confronted
midpoint for each 3-4 week unit (two in discussion
with discrepant events about which they were asked to
format and two in a laboratory format) as a way of
generate questions, explanations, and ways they would
noting general differences in use of Constructivist
determine the validity of the explanations. In all these
practices by the two teachers in the two instructional
instances, the questions, explanations, and tests were
situations. Videotapes were reviewed by at least four
analyzedwith an indication of the uniqueness of each.
familiar with ESTEEM. They had wrked
researchers
the
of
This was accepted by noting the frequency
School Science and Mathematics
I,
.1
STS Approach
with practice videos until at least a 90% agreement
conceminginterrater reliability was attained. A sample
of videotapes were then researched by different reviewers who had been a part of the team to check on
a sampling of all instruments to reach general agreement. After initial cooperative efforts produced results
that were similar 90% of the time, periodic checks were
made by 10% of the actual videotapes to provide
greater confidence in the reported scores with the
ESTEEM catagories.
Help was requested and arranged by administrators and counselors in surveying parents, involved
community activists, and other staff in the school
concerning relative impact and use of science outside
the classroom to accomplish Research Question 4.
Parents were all selected from those who attended at
least one parent-teacher conference or who had contacted the school (administrator or counselor) concerningthescienceprogram. Communitymembers included
school board members, leaders of civic groups, and
active members of the Chamber of Commerce. Some
of these leaders recommended others in their groups
who had school-age students in the middle school ofthe
district. Such surveys were conducted at the end of
each 9-week grading period and included all science
sections and teachers. For this study only the parents of
students in the two sections are reported for analyzingthe
differences among students in the STS vs. the textbook
sections. Much information was gained from surveys,
collected during teacher/parent conferences, PTA meetings, and other meetings concerning school programs.
Following is a list of basic questions directed at
parents and community leaders:
Parents:
1. Is there any evidence that your child enjoys
science?
253
2. Does he/she use any ofthe concepts and/or skills
in taking actions at home?
3. What kind of evidence does your child provide
concerning the impact of science this year in school?
Community:
1. Do you have any indication of impact and use of
school science among middle school students from our
local school?
2. Have there been any community improvement
projects about which youth in our local school have
contacted you?
3. Are you aware of any school or local news
reports about success with science study in our local
school? Do you assess the impact of such extensions of
learning outside of the classroom and the school?
Results
Table 1 shows the changes in student achievement
betweenpretests and posttests on a sampling ofquizzes
and unit examinations at the end ofthe 9-week grading
period. A semester examination for general achievement was given as a pretest during the opening week
of school in the fall; the posttest was the semester exam
given to all students in both the STS and textbook
sections. Significant growth was found with both
measures for students in both the STS and textbook
sections.
Table 2 shows the pre- and posttest results for
student application of,new concepts and the pre-post
changes in student attitudes concerning their science
study. There are significant changes for both textbook
and STS students. Interestingly, hgwveyer, the attitude
change for the textbook students is negative.
Tables 1 and 2 provide the data that respond to
Research Questions 1 and 2.
Table 1
Comparisonsof Pre- and Posttest Scores in STS and Textbook Class Sections in Terms of Student Concept
Mastery and General Achievement.
Variable
Pretest
SD
Posttest
Mean
,SD
9.15
1738
1.0
2.5
17.12
31.58
8.85
17.54
1.2
2.6
16.96
33.08
4.3
Mean
T
P
1.0
3.0
42.36
39.47
.000**
.000**
1.3
31.68
26.93
.000**
.000**a
STS approach (N= 26)
Basic concepts
General achievement
Textbook approach (N=26)
Basic concepts
General achievement
'*p<.01•
a
indicates a decrease in mean score
Volume 106(5), May 2006
I
STS Approach
254
Table 2
Comparisonsof Pre- and Posttests in STS and Textbook Class Sections in Terms of Applications of Concept
and Development of Positive Attitudes Toward Science
Posttest
Pretest
Variable
STS approach (N= 26)
Applications of concepts considered
Attitude toward science
Textbook approach (N= 26)
Applications of concepts considered
Attitude toward science
T
P
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
11.04
7.65
1.5
1.0
18.38
8.88
1.6
0.8
15.20
6.91
10.35
8.15
1.8
1.0
16.54
7.00
1.7
0.9
14.29
7.50
.000**
.000**
.000**
.000**a
**p<.O1
aindicates a decrease in mean score
Table 3 presents a compari,son of results for STS
and textbook students in the twc sections. There is no
significant difference in the co ncept mastery for students in the two sections eitl ler in terms of what
happens regarding the growth cf basic concepts measured by quizzes and unit exam s at the end of 9-week
grading periods. Similarly, thebre were no significant
differences between STS and te:xtbook students on the
changes found between pre- an .d posttest administration of the semester exam.
Teachers also compared ressults on random repeat
ofposttest with quizzes 3 weeks after the initial administration.None of these revealed significant differences
between STS and textbook stu dents. Apparently, the
mastery ofbasic concepts was st atistically the same for
both students in the STS and te•Ktbook sections.
Tables 2 and 3 indicate the advantage of the STS
approach over the textbook ap]?roach in terms of the
Table 3
Comparisons Between STS anc Textbook Class Sections in Terms of Student Con cept Mastery, General
Science Achievement, Concept Application of Concepts, and More Positive Attitu,,des Toward Science
Sumof
Variable
Square
.0003
Basic Concepts
GeneralAchievement 23.20
Applications of
4220
Concepts
AttitudesToward
55.61
Science
**p<.0 1
df
F
1
1
.00
3.80
.986
.057
1
14.92
.000 **
1
111.18
.000 **
P
development of more positive attitudes toward science
and science study. Students inthe STS section developed
significantly-more positive attitudes. Table 4 provides
information gained from students in the textbook and
STS sections regarding student suggestions for use of
the concepts studied in new settings. Four major areas
of the course structure were used, namely force,
motion, structures, and design. The numbers of uses
suggested by STS students were significantly greater
for students in the STS section. Further, these uses that
research assistants selected as'unique were far greater
for students in the STS section. All evaluations were
scored by research assistants without kriowledge of
which approach was experienced by students. The
students in the STS section were more successful in
providing ideas foruse ofconcepts innew contexts and
many more offered unique ideas.
Table 5provides informationregarding comparison
of creativity skills, exhibited by STS and textbook
students at the end of each 9-week grading period. It is
apparent that the STS students asked more questions,
offeredmore explanations, andproposed more tests for
the validation ofthe explanations than did students in the
textbook section. Further, more STS students asked
questions, offered explanations, and suggestedways of
testing for the validity of the explanations than did
students in the textbook sections. ,
Appendix A provides information about the 18
features of constructivist teaching identified byBurryStock (1995) in her ESTEEM rubric. Appendix B
includes two figures illustrating the contrasts between
the two sections of students during a class discussion
(Figure 1)and a laboratory (Figure 2). Itis apparent that
STS classrooms provided more evidence thadt
constructivist practices were in use. There "were
School Science and Mathematics
A4
255
STS Approach
Table 4
Student Generated Uses of Basic Concepts in New Situations for Students Enrolled in STS and Textbook
Sections
TextbookApproach
Total Number
Number of Unique/
of Uses
ComplexUses
STS Approach
TotalNumber
Number of Unique!
of Uses
ComplexUses
Force
Motion
Structures
Design
1
1
6
5
1
0
6
9
23
2721
33
8
11
0
0
Table 5
Creativity Skills Exhibited by the Students in STS and Textbook Sections
Creativity Skill Measure
TextbookApproach
Studentsb
Instances*
STS Approach
Instances*
Studentsb
Questions raised perclass period
Unique questions raised per class period
Explanations
Unique explanations
Tests for validity of explanations
Unique tests of validity of explanations
31
11
23
9
10
3
19
8
18
7
8
3
11
2
3
1
0
0
8
2
3
1
0
0
anumber equals total provided during class period
bnumber equals number of students offering them
differences observed by a team of research assistants
who were asked to.evaluate the practices as evidence
that the teaching approaches used by the two teachers
were different.
Table 6-provides a summary ofthe data to respond
to Research Question 4. The data arose from surveying
parents, other teachers who taught students in the two
sections, administrators and counselors, andPTA members and other community leaders. More STS students
were identified as providing evidence of the impact of
science studies in the following situations:
"*Additional activities carried out outside the
classroom.
"*Contacts with expeits outside the school for
information.
"*Conversations at home concerning experiences
in science. classes.
"*Actions taken in the community at large.
"*Writing editorials for school and communitynews.
"*"Workingwith community organizations.
"*Participating in public debate.
tLdents 'in the STS section were. notably more successfu•uin
"• Generating ideas for use of science concepts in
new situations.
"*Using creativity skills, including questioning,
proposingpossible explanations.
"*Devising tests for the validity ofthe explanations
generated.
"• Using community resources.
"* Conversing about science at home.
"*Taking actions in the community as a result of
science study.
A review of videotaped classes - both discussion
andlaboratory sessions - illustrated that the teacher in
the STS section was more ."constructivist" in her
approach to teaching.
Discussion
The results from this action research study indicate
that students can learn asmuch about science concepts
-while involved with a seemingly unrelated local issue
as the course organizer - as do students who focus
almost completely on concept mastery and use of
typical laboratory activities suggested in a textbook..It
Volume 106(5), May 2006
STS Approach
256
Table 6
Relative Impact of Science Learning Outside the Class for the Students in STS and Textbook Sections
Learning/Using Science Outside the Class'
Science-related activities carried on
outside of classroom
Contacts with experts for information
Talking about science at home
Taking actions in community
Editorials in local newspapers
Appearances at government boards
Instances of work in community
organizations
Times participated in public debates
STSApproach
Numberof
Numberof
Students
Instances
TextbookApproach
Numberof
Numberof
Students
Instances
38
31
43
21
22
20
10
5
10
10
5
6
13
16
10
12
0
1
0
1
17
9
20
9
3
2
2
1
aEach.figure is based on activities during a 9-week span of time as reported to school counselors who distributed surveys to
parents and local youth organizations and community leaders.
should be kept in mind, however, that the STS teacher
helpedprepare the concept quizzes and exams and tried
to prepare her students for success. She tried hard to
relate the ideas and concepts to direct experiences the
students had while being detectives at work on the
community landfill controversy. After a full semester of
work with non-textbook science for the STS section,
the general science achievement of students was not
significantly different between those enrolled in the
textbook and STS sections, as measured by a semester
examination prepared by the two teachers. More importantly, in the case of the application of concepts,
students in the STS section were significantly more
adept than were students in the textbook section.
Apparently, the STS approach-provides more experiences with the application of concepts as a part of the
regular classroom experiences and with the extension
of science study and involvement with activitiesbeyond
the classroom and the textbook.
Students in the STS section were able to suggest
and describe uses of concepts in new contexts. They
were also more successful in proposing uses that were
judged to be more unique and more complex. Students
in thetextbook sectionwere unsuccessful in suggesting
uses for the ideas and skills characterizing their school
science experiences.
Another advantage of the issue-oriented STS approach was the. significantly more positive student
attitudes concerning science. The usual decrease in
attitude following school study of science as reported in
several studies (Hueftle, Rakow, &, Welch, 1983;
National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1978;
Yager, 1985) did not occur when students were involved with issues characterizing the STS approach. In
fact, the attitudes were significantly more positive than
they were initially. Perhaps too few have assumed that
school science canresultin increasingpositive attitudes
among students about science. The STS -approach
seems to offer exciting possibilities -for schools and
teachers interested in the affective domain and the
development ofmore positive attitudes. Similar results
have been reported by Yager and Tamir (1995) and
Yager and Weld (1999).
Students in the issue-oriented section asked more
questions, followed up on them, and contributed more
unique questions than did students in the standard
textbook section. Since these are viewed as features of
student creativity, it is argued that the changes in
frequency of student questions and the quality of their
questions represent other major advantages of the STS
approach when the students in the two class sections
are compared. Certainly proposing explanations for
their own questions and suggesting ways to test their
validity illustrate knowledge of the nature of science
among students in the STS section.
The observations indicate that the STS students in
this study exhibitedmore qualities ofgood citizenship;
they extended sciencebeyondthe classroom and school;
they were more involved withtheir studies and continued learning. These features provide evidence of the
merits of the STS approach - at least as evidence.Vdy
this one small study. There is evidence that st,;izy in the
School Science and Mathematics
J1
257
STS Approach
STS formatresults in meeting the four goals for science
education as advanced in theNSES. The goals indicate
that all students should:
"*Experience the richness and excitement of
knowing about and understanding the natural
world;
"*Use appropriate scientific processes andprinciples
in makingpersonal decisions;
"*Engage intelligently inpublic discourse and debate
about matters of scientific and technological
concerns; and
"*Increase their economic pioductivity through the
use ofthe knowledge, understanding, and skills of
the scientifically literate person in their careers.
(NRC, 1 9 9 6 , p. 13)
The results and the statistical analyses permit some
generalizations - at least as they pertain to this one
situation. Although both teachers had similar backgrounds and had worked together in planning and
teaching middle school science, there is still no assurance that it was the skill of the teacher in using the STS
approach that resulted in the differences on the several
measures. Further, each teacher practiced her unique
teaching style, enthusiasm, and philosophy. It can be
assumed that teacher actions and practices are important in determining real learning in both the STS and
textbook sections.
Perhaps it will take more evidence and more
experiences to encourage even more teachers and
schools to use the advantages that the STS approach
and constructivist teaching may-provide. More need to
see the power that a real life local context can play in
gaining mind engagement and involvement among students. It is important to note the features used to
characterize the so-called STS approach and effective
constructivist practices, as well as the changes in
'teaching advocated by the NSES. It certainly will take
more evidence before STS will be the megatrend that
Roy (1985) saw it to be for the new millennium more
than a decade ago.
STS has been found in this study to assist in student
learning ofscience in four of the six learning domains as
identified by McCormack and Yager (1989) and by
Yager (1996). The STS approachresulted in significant
concept mastery but not more than what was achieved
"with more traditional methods in a textbook dominated
classroom. However, applications, creativity, and more
positive attitudes are three domains in which the students'studying science with an STS approach displayed
significant gains over students experiencing traditional
textbook1dominated teaching. No information was collected in this study for the process and world view
domains per se. However, Wilson andLivingston (1996)
and Kellerman and Liu (1996) reported significant
advantages in these two domains for students studying
in STS classrooms. Obsorne's (2003) study focusing on
student gains in better understanding of science also
suggests the power of using issues as organizers in
addition to using other STS teaching strategies. Similarly, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz
(2002) have summarized the research with regard to
teaching that suggests that it can result in students
learning a more accurate view of science and moreuse
ofknowing about the nature of science. Again, this was
not a primary focus for this study. However, such
learning-provides still another advantage for using the
STS approaches for meeting other important goals
central to the NSES.
Interpreting the results ofthis study suggest caution
since only two teachers from one school were involved.
Further, the effects of the specific teacher strategies
varied and may contribute to some of the results, unless
one defines even more precisely the different teaching
that typically differentiates STS and textbook dominated classrooms. Nonetheless, these strategies are
those listed in the NSES, and they also parallel the
NSTA list defining the STS approach. They are not
unlike the features Burry-Stock used in defining
constructivist classrooms. Other cautions in interpreting the results of the study are the tests in which the
assessments in the concept domain were determined.
They were all teacher prepared and/or those suggested
by the textbook publishers. Many of them simply
required duplication of skills taught or remembering
definitions and explanations. In many ways they were
typical tests that followed closely what the-textbook
(and the teacher involved) suggested. Similarly, the
general achievement examination was a teacher prepared semester test. No validity and reliability indicators were available. Certainly it is important not to
generalize too much from this one study involving but
two teachers in one school district.
Summary and Conclusions
Limitations of the study were indicated in the
introduction and with the description ofthe design of the
action research undertaken. However, it is important
again to indicate these problems before reviewing what
the reported results reveal.
The results of this study should be used with some
care in providing encouragement for all who want to
depart from standard use of science textbooks and
standard course outlines. There is'evidence that concept
Volume 106(5), May 2006
STS Approach
258
mastery is not lost when students explore and act on
their own as part of class projects. Most importantly,
STS students can apply the science concepts that they
seemto know innew situations betterthan can students
who use typical textbooks extensively. This is impressive
evidence that STS students really know; they can use
the information and skills on their own innew situations.
The development of more positive attitudes suggests
that benefitsin the affective domainmayresult. This, in
turn, provides strong arguments about the desirability of
organizing lessons around ideas and procedures other
than basic science concepts and processes. The results
suggest that teacher experimentation and student
involvement with real world experiences/problems
shouldbe encouraged even more. Such efforts promise
counterpointsin science, technology, andsociety studies. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Eijkelhof, H. M. C., Boeker, E., Raat, J. H. , & Wijnbeek, N.
J. (1981). Physics in society. Amsterdam: VU-Bookshop.
Harms, N.C. (1977). Project Synthesis: An interpretive
consolidation of research.identifying needs in natural science
education.(Aproposal prepared fortheNational Science Foundation).
Boulder: University of Colorado.
Hofstein, A., &Yager, R.E (1982). Societal issues as organizers
for science education in the 80's. School Science andMathematics,
82(7), 539-547.
- Hueftle, S.J., Rakow, S.J., & Welch, W.W. (1983). Images of
science:A summary ofresultsfromthe 1981-82NationalAssessment
in Science. Minneapolis MN: Research and Evaluation Center,
University of Minnesota.
greater mind engagement among students as more seek
Hurd, P. D. (1978). The golden age of biological education
1960-1975. InW.V. Mayer(Ed.),BSCSBiologyteacher'shandbook
(pp. 28-96). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hurd, P. D., (1986). Arationale for a science, technology, and
society theme in science education. In R. Bybee (Ed.), Science,
technology, and society (pp. 94-104). Washington, DC: National
to improve science education for all students.
Science Teacher Association.
Such efforts also provide examples of the kind of
teaching and assessments that characterize the visions
central to the NSES (NRC, 1996, p. 52, 106) and more
International Technology Education Association. (2000).
Standardsfortechnologyliteracy:Contentforthestudyoftechnology.
nearly match the goals for science that these standards
provide. They de-emphasize going overbasic concepts
ofscience and workinlaboratories, which onlyrequires
following directions and gettingresults thatVerifywhat
teacher understanding. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technologyl
toadd excitement, new trials, new information, and
Reston, Virginia.
Kellerman, L.R., & Liu, C.-T. (1996). Enhancing student and
society as reform in science education (pp. 139-148). Albany,NY;
State University of New York Press.
Kromhout, R., & Good, R. (1983). Beware of societal issues
as organizers for science education. SchoolScience andMathematics,
83(3), 647-650.
the book and teacher reported that would happen.
Lederman,N. G., Abd-Et-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Schwartz,
These efforts also illustrate the advantages of casting
S.
(2002). Views ofnature ofscience questionnaire: Toward valid
R
question
that
the use of science information in ways
assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of
meaningful
and
research
the
their actions and their attempts to answer
ofResearch in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Journal
science.
questions initiallyoutlined.
Lewis, J. (1981). Science and society. London, England:
Heinemann Educational Books and Association for Science
Education.
References
McCormack, A.J.,& Yager, R.E (1989).,Assessing teaching/
learning successes in multiple domains of science and science
Aikenhead, G.S. (1980). Scienceinsocialissues:Implications
education. Science Education,73(l),45-48.
for teaching.Ottawa, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. '(1978). The
Atlantic Science Curriculum Project. (1986). SciencePlusL.
third assessment of science, 1976-77. Denver, CO: Author.
Tor6nto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada.
National Research Council. (1996). Nationalscienceeducation
Atlantic Science Curriculum Project. (1987). SciencePlus2.
standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada.
National S6ience Teachers Association. (1990). NSTA
Atlantic Science Curriculum Project. (1988). SciencePlus3.
handbook.Arlington, VA: Author.
Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., &Duschl, R.
Brooks, Jacqueline G., & Brooks, G. (1993). In search of
What "Ideas-about-science" should be taught in school
(2003).
Alexandria,
classrooms.
constructivist
The
casefor
understanding:
science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Research in Science Teaching, 40(7) 692-720.
Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995). Expert science teacher evaluation
Penick, J.E., & Meinhard-Pellens, R. (Eds.). (1986). Science/
model (ESTEEM)instruments.(Vted.). Kalamazoo, MI: Centerfor
technology/society: Focus On Excellence, 1(5), Washington, DC:
Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation.
National Science Teachers Association.
Bybee, R. W. (1985). Science technologysociety.Washington,
Roy, R. (1985). The science/technology/society connection.
DC: Yearbook of The National Science Teachers Association.
Cheek, D. W., (2006). Reflections on the success ofthe ST_S,-CUrriculum Review, 24(3), 13-16.
Solomon, J. (1983). Science in asocialcontext(SisCon). United
movement within K-12 educationin the United Statesover th- past
Kingdom:BasilBlackwellandtheAssodiation forScienceEducation.
two decades. Paper presented at the 21"t International Association
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education:
of Science, Technology & Science Conference, Worchester
on reform.NewYork; Teachers College
internationalperspectives
MA.
Worchester,
Institute-Worcester,
Polytechnic
Press.
Cutcliffe, S. H. & Mitcham, C. (2001). Visions of STS -
School Science and Mathematics
259
STS Approach
Starnes, B.A., & Paris, C., (2000). Choosing to learn.PhiDelta
Kappan, 81(5), 392-397.
Torrance, E.P. (1963). Toward the more humane education of
gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 7, 135-145.
Wilson, J., & Livingston, S. (1996). Process skills enhancement
in the STS classroom. InR.E. Yager(Ed.),Science/technology/society
as reform in science education (pp. 59-69). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Yager, R.E., &Yager, S. 0., (1985). Changes in perceptions of
science for third, seventh, and eleventh grades students. Journalof
Researchin Science Teaching, 22(4), 347-358.
Yager, R.E. (Ed.). (1996). Science/technology/societyasreform
in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New'York
Press.
Yager, R.E. (2004). Social issues as contexts for sciences and
technologyeducation. In S. Totten & J. Pedersen (Eds.),Addressing
social issues acrossandbeyond the curriculum:Thepersonaland
pedagogicalefforts ofprofessors of education. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P. (1995). The science/technology/
society (STS) curriculumviewed through a state model. The Journal
of Technology Studies, 21(1), 33-47.
Yager, R.E., & Weld, J.D. (1999). Scope, sequence and
coordination: Thelowaproject, anational reform effort in the USA.
InternationalJourhalofScienceEducation,
21(2), 169-194.
Ziman, J. (1980). Teachingand learningabout science and
society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
AuthorNote: Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Stuart 0. Yager, Division of Education, Bethel
College, Mishawaka, IN 46545. Electronic, mail may be sent via Internet to
yagers@bethelcollege.edu -
Appendix A
Comparisons between STS and Textbook Teachers in Terms of Constructivist Teaching Practices Using the
ESTEEM Rubric
Constructivist Trait
STSApproach
Discussion
Average
Lab
Average
ofBoth
TextApproach
Discussion
Average
Average
Lab
ofBoth
Category I: Facilitatingthe LearningProcessfrom a ConstructivistPerspective
A. Teacher as a Facilitator
4.50
4.00
4.33
B. Student Engagement in Activities
5.00
5.00
5.00
C. Student Engagement in Experiences
4.00
4.00
4.00
D. Novelty
4.00
4.00
4.00
E. Textbook Dependency
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.00
3.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
233
1.67
333
233
2.00
Category II: Pedagogy Related to Student Understanding
F. Student Conceptual Understanding
4.00
G. Student Relevance
5.00
H. Variation of Teaching Methods
3.50
I. Higher Order Thinking Skills
4.00
J. Integration of Content & Process Skills
4.50
K. Connection of Concepts &.Evidence
5.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.662.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.67
Category III: Adjustments in StrategiesBased on Interactionswith Students
L. Resolution of Misperceptions
4.50
4.00
4.33
M. Teacher-Student Relationship
5.00.
5.00
5.00
N. Modification of teaching Strategies to
3.50
4.00
3.67
Facilitate Student Understanding
2.50
3.50
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
233
3.33
t1.67
Category IV.- Teacher Knowledge of Subject Matter
.Use of Exemplars
4.00
P. Coherent Lesson
3.50
Q. Balance.Between Depth
3-50
& Comprehensiveness
R. Accurate Content
4.00
4.00"
4.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
333
4.00
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
3.67
3.67
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.67
2.67
5.00
4.33
3.00
2.00
2.67
Volume 106(5), May 2006
STS Approach
260
Appendix B
Figures
Figure. 1. Comparisons between STS and textbook section with respect to STS teachingpractices used during class
discussions.
STS vs. Textbook for Discussion
6
W3
2
S TS
0
0
A B CD E F G H I J K L M NO P Q R
Indicators
Figure 2. Comparisons between STS and textbook sections with respect to STS teachingpractices used during an
activity-based class sessions.
STS vs. Textbook for Lab
04-
~
-*-Textbook
w
0
2-
02 A B C D E F G H
I J K LMNO PQ R
Indicators
A
I'l
School Science and Mathematics
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: The Advantages of an STS Approach Over a Typical
Textbook Dominated App
SOURCE: School Science and Mathematics 106 no5 My 2006
PAGE(S): 248-60
WN: 0612100758007
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.ssma.org/
Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company.
All rights reserved.